Evaluation of Some Indices of Potentially Mineralizable Nitrogen in Soil
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of soil N mineralization indices were evaluated using 153 samples chosen from arable fields representing a wide range of soil types, management practices, and climatic zones. These indices were compared against potentially mineralizable N (N 0 ) determined by aerobic incubation at 25°C for 24 wk. Three different pools of mineralizable N were recognized: Pool I, the mineralization flush on rewetting in the first 2 wk; Pool II, gross N mineralization in the next 22 wk; and Pool III, the potentially mineralizable N, predicted from the fitted curve, that did not mineralize during the incubation period. Pool I was highly correlated with CaCl 2 –N, KCl‐NH 4 , and KCl‐NO 3 , which extract soil mineral N. Pool III was significantly correlated with ultraviolet absorbance of NaHCO 3 extract at 205 and 260 nm (NaHCO 3 –205 and −260), Illinois soil N test, NaOH direct‐distillation N, and hot KCl‐NH 4 , which mostly extract hydrolyzable organic N. All indices except the mineral N based methods, phosphate‐borate buffer method, and microbial biomass C were significantly related to N 0 , which includes both Pools II and III. The NaHCO 3 –260, NaOH direct‐distillation N, and Illinois soil N test had the highest correlations with N 0 ( r 2 = 0.74, 0.61, and 0. 51, respectively). Total organic C and N represent long‐term changes in N 0 and were almost as effective in predicting N 0 as the other indices ( r 2 = 0.60 and 0.67, respectively); however, they would be expected to be less sensitive to short‐term changes in N 0 due to changes in soil management practices and history.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it